Please not another list. [log in to unmask] should be
fine and most ATLAS site-admins are on this...or should be.
Peter
On 4 July 2011 11:33, Alastair Dewhurst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apologies to those of you who are nothing to do with ATLAS, however the aim
> of this mail to find better ways of contacting ATLAS people so hopefully
> this will reduce the overall amount of ATLAS stuff you get.
>
> The standard way for ATLAS to contact sites if they believe there is a
> problem is through GGUS. This works well for a lot of problems. However a
> GGUS ticket is a bit over kill for problems that are possibly transient, or
> for things that aren't confirmed as problems yet. Over the last 6 months
> ATLAS have also put a lot of effort into improving site monitoring with
> automatic tools. There is a daily summary of the various GGUS/savannah
> tickets open at the sites in the cloud, we get automatic notifications of
> when sites are put broker-off because they are failing HammerCloud tests, we
> get notifications if space tokens are filling up and more things are being
> continually added. On average we might get around 5 emails a day for the
> cloud and I feel that the benefit* to sites of being informed quickly about
> problems, out weighs the slight increase in spam mails.
>
> What I propose doing is setting up (yet) another mail list along the lines
> of [log in to unmask] which we will get the automatic
> notifications sent to. For this to work sites would then have to subscribe
> to this mail list. If sites needed help understanding/debugging the
> problems then they could contact [log in to unmask] and for
> serious problems sites would still receive GGUS tickets.
>
> The site admin list could also be used for ATLAS related technical
> discussion as well as a way of informing sites about changes to ATLAS work
> flows etc. I don't feel its appropriate to use
> [log in to unmask] as that mail list has managers and users on
> it and we need one for general technical discussion.
>
> Can I have feedback to this idea, do people feel that this is a sensible
> idea and would appreciate the additional information?
>
> Alastair
>
>
>
>
> * ATLAS are requiring that for sites to be made into T2D+multi cloud they
> require a decent level of support and reliability along with good network
> connections and some minimum size requirements. Currently Glasgow and
> Manchester have this status and are receiving substantially more work than
> other UK sites. QMUL and Lancaster are on their way to being there and
> Brian (and several others) are working hard to get as many sites as possible
> passing the criteria.
>
|